Detail photograpghy lens...?

[mark_vasco]

<p>Hi Team,<br>

I like to take photo's of organic or man made products, especially Architectural, which challenges the viewer in trying to find what it is or where it is of a certain object, sometimes the shots are taken very sharp and some i like to exaggerate the focal point with a strong Bokeh, and at the moment im using a <strong>Nikon 35mm/f1.8</strong>. I shoot <strong>RAW</strong> and the files super fine, so if need be, if I'm not happy i can always crop it more.<br>

Is there another lens I could look at as a zoom instead of a prime that will give the shot i need as opposed the prime lens, in which i need to walk back and forth to get the shot.<br>

Cheers<br>

Mark</p>

[Two23]

<p>Instead of looking for a lens, how about a really solid tripod and head? That's the FIRST thing I think of when wanting maximum sharpness.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[dave_wilson1]

If you really want that wider aperture bokeh, probably any of the mid range 17-55 or similar f2 8 zooms would do the trick

for you. If you search, there's quite a bit of discussion on the f2.8 zooms. But what camera you have will matter on your

lens choice. Happy trails

[mark_vasco]

<p>Kent, sharpness is not an issue as i have a tripod, and i think you misunderstood the post, i take some really sharp and some i take with a lot of bokeh, I was wanting to know what lens with a zoom would be good for a walk about lens which is great for detail to mate up with my D7000.<br>

<br />Will look into it Dave thanks.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>What range of focal lengths are you interested in? And how much do you want to spend on it? There are a lot of f/2.8 zoom options out there.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>MV: <em>"...and some i take with a lot of bokeh,..."</em></p>

<p>Sorry, but I have to point out a minor problem. The above use of the term, "bokeh", is incorrect. Your statement is analogous to saying, <em>"...and some I take with a lot of focus"</em>. It makes no sense at all. What you probably meant to say is, <em>"...and I emphasize large, soft OOF blur circles in many of my pix."</em></p>

<p>Please excuse the interruption. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>Sharp images? You may consider the Nikon AF-S 40mm f2.8G DX Micro-Nikkor lens. A zoom will let you skip over the moving back-n-forth, but I would guess the Micro-Nikkor is going to give sharper results overall.</p>

<p> </p>

[andylynn]

But he already has the 35mm and gets sharp results. There's going to be little if any difference between that and a

40mm. The OP was asking about zoom lenses.

[elliot1]

<p>24-70mm f2.8.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Kind of hard to suggest anything as it's not clear which focal length you'd want. Do you want wider than the 35mm, a lot wider, or longer, or a lot longer?<br>

Does this lens have to do shallow DoF, or would it be OK to switch to the 35 f/1.8 for that, and have the zoom be a less optimal for such work? How much money do you want to spend? How much weight do you like to carry around?<br>

For example, the lens Elliot mentions is excellent, and covers the range "near" your 35mm well, but it does not go superwide. And it's nearly 1 kilo and over $1500. It could be exactly what you need, it could be all wrong. You will have to give us more indications if you want serious suggestions.</p>

<p>_____<br>

Tom Mann +1. Bokeh is a subjective quality, it cannot be "a lot" or "little", only "good" or "bad".</p>

 

[Two23]

<p>The reality is that all modern lenses are pretty sharp at f8. I just go with lenses that have the zoom range that I find most convenient.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[andylynn]

It is obvious what the OP means by "a lot of bokeh." I think it's a perfectly reasonable use of the term.

[ShunCheung]

I am still a bit puzzled by what "detail photography" is. Since Mark the OP has no portfolio listed, it would help if he could

post a couple of sample images to show us what he is trying to achieve.

[bruce_brown]

<p>Mark: I think what you are looking for has been suggested ... a 17-55 2.8. Nikon has one for $$, and there is the Sigma and Tamron for less $$. The Nikon 17-55 is possibly the best DX zoom lens Nikon has ... plus it focuses down to about 1.25-ft on the lens scale ... 'take you in, take you out' ... plus the 2.8 gives you much flex on defocused backgrounds and sharp images. A perfect match with the D7000. Can you try one in the store? ... and if you do, buy it from them?</p>

[marklcooper]

<p>+ 1 Dave and Bruce. Incorrect use of terminology or not, I believe the original question was quite clear. He's very happy with his 35/1.8 except for walking back and forth (using his feet to zoom out and in) to compose his subject. I have the Nikon 17 - 55 2.8 and am extremely pleased with it. The Sigma and Tamron versions of this lens have received very favorable comments by many Photo.net members.</p>

[nsfbr]

Andy L - why do you take issue with politely informing someone that, in words of Inigo Montoya, "I do not think it means

what you think it means. "?

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Normally I'd be quite happy to discuss the misuse of technical terms with someone, but this is the <a href="http://xkcd.com/386/">internet</a>. We could also discuss the effect of walking back and forth on perspective, as opposed to framing, and the distinction between moving and using a zoom. But I think we can be more helpful by trying to answer the question.<br />

<br />

Mark: My concern, which may come from misunderstanding your question, is that you're expecting to have the same level of depth of field control with a zoom as you do with your 35mm f/1.8. Since nobody makes a zoom faster than f/2.8 (for a DX or full-frame DSLR), there's going to be a loss of depth of field control. And then, f/2.8 zooms are very expensive. I wonder whether it would be better to suggest a set of prime lenses to try instead, which would give more depth of field control (with slightly less convenience) for similar total money - for example, the 28, 50 and 85mm f/1.8 lenses.<br />

<br />

If we're going to look at f/2.8 zoom lenses, a longer lens will often have more ability to blur the background (because the amount that's blurred is magnified more compared with the foreground). A longer zoom such as a 70-200 - or, on a budget, an 80-200 - might be a better complement to a 35mm prime if you think you can use that focal length.<br />

<br />

An f/2.8 normal zoom like the 24-70 is a compromise, and a very expensive one. It's very good at what it does, and I'm not suggesting that you rule it out, but I just want to be clear what alternatives are available. There are much cheaper, and optically good, options if you don't need the aperture (and bearing in mind that the aperture we're talking about in the f/2.8 zooms is still more than a stop slower than the 35mm). The 18-55 VR that's often sold as a kit lens, for example, is optically pretty capable.</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>"There's going to be little if any difference between that and a 40mm." I can only guess the 35mm does not focus in the 4 to 6-inch range. So if the OP wants to fill his image with close-up detail...a micro-Nikkor lens can do that.</p>

 

[andylynn]

Joel, it's obvious that a lot of bokeh means blurring the background a lot. Correcting what is really a minor and

common misuse of the term - that isn't confusing and does convey the desired information - is just nitpicking and

doesn't help the OP get the question answered.

[tom_mann1]

<p>Andy, yes, unfortunately, this is a common mistake. However, if a friend, colleague, or your second shooter said something that made them look uninformed and poorly spoken in their chosen field, ESPECIALLY if it is a common mistake, wouldn't you try to give then a private, gentle suggestion that might help them look better the next time the issue comes up? </p>

<p>IMHO, it's vastly better if such gaffs are corrected in complete anonymity on the internet than seen and heard in the real-world where it might cost them a job and/or their real-world technical credibility.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[abbas_haider]

Another vote for nikkor 17-55 f2.8, also you can go for tamron or sigma they are sharp lenses too.

[dbcooper]

<p>Zoom you say? 17-55/2.8. It's plenty sharp on my D7k. With the OP's comparison of sharp and plenty of "strong bokeh" (to my mind strong would be the opposite of bokeh, which is a quality of OOF softness), sounds to me like he's experimenting with DoF, and therefore sharper backgrounds and foregrounds, and not sharpness in and of itself as an absolute measure of optical performance. Whichever is required, IMO the 17-55 can deliver as well as any Nikon zoom. YMMV.</p>

[mark_vasco]

<p>To Mark.L.Cooper and Andrew Garrard, thank for you response and understanding where I was coming from and you both nailed in what i wanted in achieving in what I wanted in my photography, will start looking at what you suggested. I thought what I had asked was simple enough, I guess some just like to take it beyond simple.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Mark: I'm glad to help. I'd like to defend my fellow posters, though - if we seem to be over-complicating, it's because we want to make sure were definitely answering the right question, even if we answer a few irrelevant ones too! I make a point of this only because I'm more guilty than most of giving excessive answers. If my prime suggestion doesn't help you, the experience of other posters with the fast zooms far exceeds mine, so I hope their input also turns out to be useful. Good luck with whatever solution you choose.</p>